Debate the issues facing Seattle Public Schools, share your opinions, read the latest news. Organize and work for high quality public schools that educate all students to become passionate, lifelong learners.

Monday, August 07, 2017

Latest School Board Election 2017 Tally Results

No new tallies have moved the dial especially in the more contested District V race so I think these will be the final candidates.

Here's the updates:

District IV
Eden Mack - 70.45%
Herbert J. Camet, Jr. - 7.77%

District V
Zachary DeWolf - 47.17
Omar Vasquez - 17.54%

District VII
Betty Patu - 68.36%
Chelsea Byers - 21.02%

Final results will be certified by King County elections on August 15th.

For the record, The Seattle Times endorsed an entire white slate of candidates. Left to the Seattle Times, Seattle Public Schools would have an entire white board with the exception of a Native American.

To start, he sits on a charter school group board. And he wants to be on a school board that has rejected being an authorizer. A school board that has a resolution against charter schools. I think there's a disconnect there (I also think if he wanted to be on the SPS board, he should have stepped down off his current board.)

Just because he was a teacher, doesn't mean he was a good one. What's your evidence on that?

"Neighborhood schools made it the situation embedded, and that isn't going to change anytime soon."

I'm talking about pigeon-holing someone who, at least for a few years, walked the talk and, according to his website, had a school experience of his own that shows that his ample success was not always certain.

PATU, Peters, Harris and Burke supposedly are all in sync when it come to what needs to be fixed, RIGHT? You could also pull in Pinkham and Gerry, RIGHT. So that's 4-3 or 6-1.

So what the F has been going on? Seriously if this board could not make drastic fixes then tell me what board could? If you get an ed reform stacked board in I can tell you they would quickly get their agenda rolling. Peters was elected to save the district from the ed reformers, well Sue maybe you should step up and so families and tax payers that we don't need ed reformers to have a well functioning district. YA THINK!

Did the manufactured budget crisis scare the board? 1.5 years is enough time to make serious inroads. What could be the problem? Has Peters given up?

I certainly would agree that change is too slow for my taste. But I have seen much pushback from this Board and I expect that continue. And, the next Board will put in a new superintendent who WILL have the vision to move this district forward. I truly believe that.

Ed reformers would just muddy the waters.

And you should watch your tone, Radar. Director Peters had the courage to step up and run and then win and then serve. Don't knock that unless you did something equally courageous.

I agree with Radar, So why can't this board get the people's agenda moving.

Every parent that deals with SPS is courageous, running for board is nothing compared to fighting SPS via due process! Gee I wonder how many board members have gone thru the citizen compliant process or due process. My guess is ZERO!

@ Radar and SPED Parent, so what exactly is the people's agenda for SPS? I mean, if there's such a well-agreed-upon set of things to do, it should be easy, right? My guess is it's not so crystal clear as you think.

@ messenger, you said "this district is a tale of two cities in terms of education." Can you please clarify? Are you suggesting the district is providing two different types of education, and if so, what are the differences? Or are you saying that the city itself is divided, and that the educational differences are a function of that?

So I do want to have this discussion especially since the theme is racial equity and how this is all playing out in the district.

But two things.

One, you can tell by the chart on Sped costs presented at the press conference on McCleary yesterday, that the district is very frustrated by the state not really covering the costs of Sped.

And I'll be honest - Sped costs are a big issue to every single district. Those costs - and the different types of Sped services needed - are why most charter schools don't want to deal with Sped students. And, if you ever read the comments at the Times when Sped is discussed, it's just plain horrifying. From the thinking that it's no big deal to be dyslexic to believing that kids with high-level problems should be put into homes for life. It's insane stuff.

Everyone knows there is a real live federal law about a free and appropriate education but no one wants to pay to ensure that happens.

Two, Charlie and I have said for forever and a day, this district does not perform well operationally and until that gets done, academically you will not see much progress. That superintendent after superintendent either doesn't get that or can't change that is problematic.

Amen SPED parent. Geary drank the kool-aide everywhere she could. The latest special ed dandy seems to be her pal. And, she never listens to parents. Her world seems to be very small and limited to her own personal experience. The problem with SPED is not, absolutely not, the cost. Go into any high school. You will see plenty of IAs doing not very much. Socializing, reading the paper, sometimes helping students in a pretty aimless and undirected way. Hardly what you'd expect if there was a funding crisis in SPED. IAs can pretty much do whatever they want, and like sped teachers, are never really held to any standard. One could make the case that special ed is actually over funded - with funds being stolen from it at every turn. Nobody should recommend spending more on sped. It won't be used on sped. The real problem for students is the endemic discrimination and calcified attitude. Heck, there are more and more and more administrators - including how many "directors" now? Nobody even knows. Last we heard, Michaela Clancy was being replaced by 3 extra directors. Is that in addition to the 3 that were already there? The persistent sped problem is a failure to require general ed teachers to teach to all students. Yes. All students in special ed are general ed students and general ed teachers are primarily responsible for them. You would never know that stepping into a classroom. Regular educators essentially ignore students with disabilities, and just hope that they go away and require nothing of them. And since regular ed teachers have 0 expectation of special ed students, special ed teachers are quick to follow. The reality is most charter schools don't want to deal with sped, and neither do most option schools. Most neighborhood schools don't want to do SPED either - but they know they won't be able to do much about it.

And by the way, just what are these sped "services" that are so hard to fund? Well, there still is no accounting for that claim: no reasoning, no best practices, no curricula, no assistive tech, NOTHING that describes the actual "service" or its costs. What exactly is a "sped service"? It's still just a staffing ratio. Eg. A pricetag. And how do you prove that a student deserves a given pricetag? Well really, you can't prove that any kid needs a particular pricetag. And therefore you can never prove that you really need money.

So, do we really need more money for sped or not? Sure more money is always great, but where does it go? Until there is a crystal clean description of funding, where the money goes, how it follows the student into all the various settings, types of services in terms of actual work, and a true accounting of how special ed staff is used - there is no way to determine if special ed is underfunded, or overfunded, or just right.

Wow thanks for that, you really nailed it. The assistive tech (AT) is really interesting because in 2013 an OCR investigation was opened against SPS for 504 violations related to several schools failing to enforce 504 tech plans.

The OCR investigative lead was Ms.Schmidt who left the USDE OCR to take a position with SPS as the Student Civil Rights Compliance Officer and those cases remain unresolved to this day.

Ms. Schmidt never initiated any form of corrective action regarding AT but she did advise the Special Educational Legal Round table on the nuances in law and ways to finesse the wording of 504 plans to achieve compliance.

In Feb 2016 a lawyer for SPS emailed OCR asking for guidance on creating policies on 504 plans involving AT. This means SPS as of 02 2016 still had not dealt with the problems outlined in the 2013 complaint and OCR had not notified SPS of the need to correct such violations.

I understand that Ms. Schmidt has left the district and now owns Advance Law Office, PLLC, is the solo law practice of Kelli Schmidt she provides OCR investigation, training, and consulting services to public schools.

At the end of the day, the real return on special ed funding needs to be measured in results. Financial results. Currently the district has avoided all measures of accountability. We need to track the income and independence of students with disabilities 2 and 4 years after graduation ( or transition). Currently, my gut tells me we're getting practically nothing in return for special ed spending. If special ed doesn't lead to vastly enhanced independence, then what really is the point? The RCAP directed the district to do post secondary checks for education and employment. What are the results of that mandate based on each high schools' graduating class?

I also agree with Radar. I was chagrined by the dearth of change/reform from this board. Resolutions are all well and good, but when it came to policies and initiatives...staff dictated 'em and the board just nodded.

Another SPED parent, thanks for that summary. Interesting that parents don't think it would take more money.

I am saddened by the real disconnect between the Sped staff and parents, both at the school-level and the district-level. That it continues on and we have more angry and frustrated parents should be a signal to the district and the Board.

Too often, I see at meetings and staff gives a rosy picture of what is being done but not about outcomes or parent satisfaction which really should be the measure of achievement, not just output. What is it that the district doesn't understand?

I think Sped should be a major focus given the high degree of unhappiness. And yes, Director Geary should take that lead.

Whatta waste, I don't agree with your summary. This last year, the Board did not just pass resolutions but did push back, a lot, on staff. They got those waitlist moved and that would NOT have happened without them.

Dear Radar and others that think..."If you get an ed reform stacked board in I can tell you they would quickly get their agenda rolling."

Think again.

Let's look at history. Years ago, Seattle had a corporate backed "reform" board. These individuals came from the professional class. We had a lawyer, Boeing executive and alike.The board was in place during the great recession. A time when the district closed a funding gap of $125M over 4 years. What did the reform board do? They a) allowed the superintendent to increase administrative spending from 5%-6% to 9%. The 9% figure represented approximately $12M. At the same time, counselors and support staff were cut. b) SPS's audit went to hell. The auditor found 12 findings. Other districts had zero. c) Due to lack of fiscal infrastructure, the auditor told the public that public assets were at risk. Ultimately, there was a scandal. d) signed onto an assessment without realizing that the superintendent sat on the board of the testing company. Can't recall the dollar amount for this test.

Assertions that a "reform" board will hold the district accountable rings hollow.

What is wrong with Vasquez? He supports charter schools; something that will ultimately serve to weaken our existing public school structure. When Vasquez first registered to run for school board, his professional bio indicated that he was involved with charter schools. Those references are now gone. Transparency counts.

The district has 147 open positons. Some of those positions are for math teachers. Perhaps Vasquez should return to the classroom.

I think I'm not being clear. Regardless of the outcome an Ed reform board would push their agenda hard, good or bad. I'm not for an Ed reform (whatever that is) board unless it means better student outcomes.

As for this boards work on the wait list, yes it was good to see the DISTRICT keep it's written and spoken word on Whitman. I would not call it a huge effort because not doing it would have caused a tremendous amount of bad will and disruption. They took the path of least resistance.

It's sad to hear from the parents who were forced to choose RESMS over WMS because of losing transportation. Shame on the board and the district for using extortion to populate a school.

I agree that the board did help and they deserve credit for that. I just don't think it was a heavy lift because of the long list of commitments made and the fact that now parents have to pony up transportation to WMS. Now if the board would have provided continued transportation then I would give them a huge attaboy.

Many students want to finish middle school at WMS but their parents need the district to provide transportation. Once again it's an equity issue were wealthier families can afford to provide their own transportation solutions to keep their student at WMS and those who can't get bused out of the area to RESMS.

Well Melissa, I'm sure plenty of parents believe that spending is the culprit. But where is the evidence? What are we doing with what we've got? Why do we need more money? What are we spending money on now? What exactly are those services? How do they work, how do we measure them? How much time do students spend in various settings (isn't that pretty basic information that nobody seems to have)? For example - if students are just dumped into general ed, and never see a special teacher - that really costs nothing other than the hour it takes the sped teacher to whip together an IEP. And yes, it's not that uncommon. How can you claim that you need more money when you don't even know what you're spending now. When there are no controls, no standards, no methods, no check for results - it's really hard to say anything about the money. It's surely possible that more is needed, but the basic problem is not the money. It is the will.

There are just too many barriers to accountability in Seattle public school system. It currently takes an enormous amount of money each year to run this district and if various groups have their way it would even be more money.

I don't think there's a clear vision of exactly what public schools are trying to achieve. The state constitution could not be more vague in describing the public good and how to measure it in meeting the paramount duty expectation.

I think it's time for a major reset or a renascence in public education. Less play time and more learning. There just so much time and money wasted these days.

It's true. Parents are not clamoring for more money. We want our kids educated and prepared to face the world after school. We want them treated fairly with respect to school assignment and being truly included as part of their neighborhood and community. We want effective use of our students Gened and Sped funding (they get both no matter what setting they're in). They deserve access to real classrooms, not "Study Skills".

Annually, staff trots out their tired canard about burning money on SpEd. At the same time, we see them spend on the wrong things (staffing ratios) or misdirecting it (recess monitors, subbing for a gened teacher).

Geary is the wrong person to "lead" the board on SpEd matters. She's too besotted with Wyeth Jessee and falls for his BS. All too often the other directors simply follow her lead, even when it is in the dead-wrong direction.

@My 2cents, are you suggesting that classroom time amounts to a lot of "play time" instead of "instruction"? That doesn't fit with what I've seen, at all. Not even kindergarten includes much play time anymore, which is a shame. Some might say we need more play time, not less--that we could wait until middle or high school to suck the joy out of school if we must...

@mirmac1, what's so horrible about study skills classes? I know some middle and high school students who really benefit from them--and my own child would be better off with that option if available. Are you referring to a particular type of study skills classes, or certain grade levels, or maybe kids who are in them for all/most of the day, not just a period? Some clarity would be helpful. It's hard to believe that study skills classes are always a disservice.

Study skills class is a one size fits all excuse for services. See over the dozen or so special ed citizen complaints wbere school were found to be warehousing SPED students in study skills classes never providing any SDI.

@ SPED Parent, do you mean "warehousing" them all day, or for that one period? Like I said, I know kids who benefit from that period... maybe study skills classes are more appropriate for some SPED students than others, and/or maybe some schools/teachers do them better? Do you object to the idea of study skills classes, or think they are not good enough, or? It's hard to understand strong statements, like claims of warehousing, without more detail on what's really happening, especially when it doesn't match my experience. I do, however, want to understand better.

The fact is, the standards for educators teaching students with disabilities is so low, people now think "study skills" is a good class. Maybe it is good by comparison. And that is because it is often the ONLY class where anybody spends any time with students with disabilities at all. The bar is that low. Other people like study skills classes because they think kids get homework done there. But OSPI definitely cracked down on that. Unfortunately they eliminated the only good thing in study skills classes, homework assistance.

Well SPED parent, Study Organization is an SDI area of special ed qualification. Theoretically a study skills class would teach these skills. Unfortunately these skills can't be taught in isolation, at least not effectively. Do any Sped teachers circle around to see if the students are more organized in their regular classes, or have effectively taken notes in their regular classes, or know when the next test is, or study effectively? Uh no. They never check on anything that would indicate that study skills is working or not working. Seriously, if this is a great class, then why do kids have to take the same class, literally, for at least 7 years. That is an indication that whole thing is completely bogus. Next up on the bogosity charts, general math.

"Specially designed instruction (SDI) means adapting, as appropriate, to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of a child that results from the child's disability; and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum."

So if the entire school is taking study skill class the SDI would be applied to that class but not be the class, again that's two different things.

In of its self study skills class is not SDI nor appropriate as meeting a students SDI minutes.

@ SPED Parent, can't the decision of whether or not to put the child in a study skills class be part of the SDI? I'm assuming some IEP and 504 students could use such a class, while others maybe not. As for why it's not a one-time class, my own experience has shown that study skills take constant development. As the work gets harder, the organizational and executive function skills required also ramp up. Plus, my student is very resistant to change and adopts new practices VERY slowly, so it's an ongoing issue. I suspect we'll be working on study and organizational skills all through high school at the minimum--probably also in college and beyond.

I'm disappointed to hear, however, that the homework assistance piece was (apparently?) eliminated, as I agree with Another SPED Parent that that was the most valuable component. Is that a recent change, or are schools maybe ignoring it? I heard that homework assistance did happen last year...

Oh, and SPED Parent, I'm not trying to "defend" SPS. Sheesh. Not everything is an attack; sometimes people just have questions or different perspectives. Directing me the OSPI website doesn't really answer the questions I asked you, but whatever--if you don't care to explain, that's fine.

Sped Parent, by that interpretation you would never have any self contained settings anywhere. And what about the ubiquitous "Life Skills" classes?

Skilz , the service you seem to be describing is accommodation and modification. The actual study skills requirements do not increase because the complexity of the subject matter increases. People use the study skills classes as tutoring for regular ed. And that does not really develop general skills. Really and truly, if your kid mastered note taking, or planner maintenance, project scheduling, then that would not be the thing holding them back. Maintaining planners, staying organized, and taking notes.... can not be taught separately from the actual core classes where the skills are needed. Think about it. Does it make sense to teach note taking in a class that has no subject matter? Whether or not homework assistance is provided in study skills depends on the school, but at many schools it's gone. And really, that isn't SDI. It's useful in the short run, but doesn't really address many problems long term. OSPI definitely said it's not SDI and should be something provided by general ed, not special ed.

Another thing to consider. Your kid gets 0 electives if they are forever warehoused in Study or Life Skills bologna. That might be sort of ok in middle school where most of the electives suck. In high school electives are the crucial piece of education, the thing that really develops skills and determines their next step. With CORE 24 you don't have time to waste on tutoring irrelevance.

@ Another SPED Parent, thanks for not dismissing me like the prior poster(s). Your comments are helpful. For my child six full academic periods per day would likely be too overwhelming, so the idea of a study skills class--particularly if it included time for homework, planning, figuring out what was missing, etc.--is appealing. Trying to take care of everything at home is too much, even when he DOES manage to get clarity on the assignments and bring the proper materials home. I agree that it's a problem with CORE 24, but I think that's going to be a challenge for us regardless.

It's true that Study Skills classes help students with disabilities muddle through. But isn't that really because the regular education classes don't adequately differentiate or support students with disabilities in the first place? They are completely ignored by regular ed teachers who expect Study Skills to mop up the mess. Do students actually learn anything or improve at "studying" because of a study skills class? I think there's no evidence of actual improvement on the SDI areas derived from Study Skills.

It's because you tried to speak authoritatively but really have no idea what you're talking about. If your child needs tutoring that is a huge difference from SPED students who require SDI in their IEPs. BTW 504 plans are about accommodations and has nothing to do with study skills class.

Your nonchalant flipped comments are insulting to all the students and parents who have suffered from SPS's abuse of the study skill class.

I tried to speak authoritatively? Uhh, whatever you say. I asked a lot of questions, and the statements I made were generally of the personal nature (e.g., I can't understand...; I'm assuming...; I suspect..."; "I agree..."; and "in our experience..."), but at least you put me in my place! How dare I ask questions or think a study hall type class (which is how these classes have sometimes been delivered) would benefit my kid. (And I suppose I should call my friend and tell him I know he's lying that his high school student found that class helpful, too, because clearly it just can't be...).

Your nonchalant flipped comments are insulting to all the students and parents who have suffered from SPS's abuse of the study skill class.

I doubt (opinion, not authoritative(!) that many parents and students other than yourself were particularly insulted by my well-meaning questions and comments, but if any were, I regret that. I suspect (opinion again!) however, that most were able to see my comments for what they were--a serious effort to understand why some consider study skills classes to be "warehousing," while others consider that to be a useful part of the day, for whatever reason.

I suppose I could turn your comment around on you and say that "your nonchalant, flippant comments about 'warehousing' are insulting to all the students and parents who have found value in SPS's study skills class," but I don't really want to engage you on that level.

I think it's a shame that some SPED parents like to shame and berate others who have a different experience or who have questions or who are unfamiliar with whatever the current complaint is. Some of the SPED posters on this blog "seem" to like to complain that nobody understands how bad SPED has it and nobody helps to advocate for SPED, but then, often as not, if someone makes an effort to chime in they are shot down. It's unfortunate. (Or excuse me--I mean, I FEEL it's unfortunate.)

@ skilz Perhaps you should review your comments. I offered you a legitimate authoritative opinion documented in the OSPI website and you took offense to the fact that I could not bother to explain the issues to you.

To reply to your last comment, there are a few EBD students that have found that going into the study skills class room was a good TIME OUT from the stress of the gen ed classes, but again THIS IS NOT SDI nor proper use of SPED funding.

From my personal observations of many study skills class rooms, I found no SDI being provided and the teacher to be incapable of meeting the needs of 20 plus students because of the wide range of student needs. This not the fault of the teacher but of the school and the district per OSPI's documentation.

So...your were an identified minority in high school who would become a first generation college student?

You later spent two years out of college, help other recognized minorities who were at-risk for failure?

Is that why you have trashed Vasquez as a tool and puppet at every chance except this time you were directly called on your privilege (despite any relatives in the closet, because most of us can do that...ie Elizabeth Warren).

Education Acroynms

Advanced Learning - SPS' three-tier program for advanced learners. Made up of APP, Spectrum and ALOs. (Note: the name of the district program is "Advanced Learning Services and Programs" but these three programs fall under "Highly Capable Services" of AL Services and Programs.

ALO - Advanced Learning Opportunity, the third tier of SPS' Advanced Learning program

AP - Advanced Placement. A national program of college-level classes given in high schools.

APP - Accelerated Progress Program. One of the levels of the Advanced Learning Program. NOTE: the name of this program is now "HIGHLY CAPABLE COHORT." This change occurred in 2014.

ASB - Associated Student Body. High school leadership groups.

AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress. Part of NCLB.

BEX - Building Excellence. SPS' capital renovation/rebuilding program that is funded via the BEX levy. Every 3 years there is the Operations levy and either the BEX or BTA levies as those two levies rotate in six year cycles).

BLT - Building Leadership Team. Staff members at a school who meet regularly to discuss building issues.

BTA - Buildings, Technology, Academics. The major maintenance/other capital fund for SPS. Originally BTA was to cover major maintenance like HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning), roofs, waterlines, etc.) but now covers wide swaths of items like athletic fields, technology and funding academic needs.

CAICEE - Community Advisory Committee for Investing in Educational Excellence. Created by former Superintendent Manhas in 2008, to issue a report about reform recommendations for SPS.

CSIP - Continuous School Improvement Plan, the plan for improvement for each school as required by state law.

EOC - End of Course Assessments, given in math and science, required for high school graduationESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal law that governs education, includes the NCLB accountability provisions.

e-STEM or e-STEAM - STEM or STEAM curriculum with an environmental focus.

FACMAC - Facilities and Capacity Management Advisory Committee. A district committee comprises of an all-volunteer citizen group created in 2012 to help bring research and ideas to capacity management issues in the district.

FERPA - Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. A federal law that protects students' privacy

FRL - Free and reduced lunch.

FTE - Full Time Equivalent

FY - Fiscal Year

Highly Capable Services - NEW name (as of 2014) as umbrella name for these programs: Highly Capable Cohort (formerly APP), Spectrum and ALO (Advanced Learning Opportunities).

HSPE - High School Proficiency Exam, state assessment that replaced the WASL for 10th graders, required for graduation

HQT - Highly Qualified Teacher, a standard set by federal law

IA - Instructional Assistant

IB - International Baccalaureate program. An international program of advanced classes that can either be taken as stand alone or as part of an overall IB program.

IDEA - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The federal law that governs special education

MAP - Measures of Academic Progress. A computer-based adaptive assessment made by NWEA and originally purchased by the district for use as a district-wide formative assessment but now used for a wide variety of purposes.

MSP - Measurement of Student Progress, the state proficiency assessment that replaced the WASL for students in grades 1-8

MTSS - Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

NCLB - No Child Left Behind, a provision of the federal education law, ESEA, introduced during the George W. Bush administration